Chemtrails, not by Jack White.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

There seems to be a suggestion here that Mods are not doing their job, let me quickly explain my stance. Unless rules conserning members behaviour are being broken I don't see the need for moderation, you're all grown-ups after all, and should be able to withstand a little "rough and tumble" in the debate.

There is no suggestion that the Mods are not doing their jobs. The suggestion is that the rules are not now up to the task. Specifically what is being addressed is that baiting and confrontation should now be expressly forbidden.

Posts that are intended to inflame passions should be inhibited. This is common practice on other forums.

This thread is a classical example of one that started off gently and pleasantly enough -- debating issues -- but soon degenerating to become purposely confrontational and argumentative. This is something that appears to happen frequently without care, concern or censure... apparently.

The bad feelings this generates is quite widespread, deep and enduring. Please mark my words on this.

What is being asked for is a reassessment of moderating rules to inhibit baiting tactics and purposeful confrontation.

However, if what is wanted is outrageous lock & load rock and roll, then that's what will happen.

I would be deighted if such new rules were enacted and enforced. However, my expectation is that they wont. Which is why I again reiterate my offer to finance and administrate another independent forum to discuss these issues where more stringent rules about confrontation and behaviour will be enforced. It may be that there won't be any uptake of this offer, which will be fine by me, my limited pocket and time commitments elsewhere. But at least this option will be available for members who do not wish to visit here every day to witness yet another unmoderated outbreak of deflective trivia or flame war.

David

Hi David, you have a point, but, both sides make the same claims, ie, baiting and name calling, and both, to be fair have a point. If members really want me to crack down on this then fair enough I shall do, but without fear or favour. If you have a problem with a particular Moderator then your course is clear, report it to the Admin.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

There seems to be a suggestion here that Mods are not doing their job, let me quickly explain my stance. Unless rules conserning members behaviour are being broken I don't see the need for moderation, you're all grown-ups after all, and should be able to withstand a little "rough and tumble" in the debate.

Stephen - I largely agree with David Guyatt's post #51.

In response to your comments, "Rough and tumble" is fine. Indeed, it's part of rigorous debate. I'm happy to give as good as I get.

However, on no other Internet site that I frequent have I seen a moderator deliberately insult and seek to ridicule members. Evan Burton's post #25 was a clear example of this. It added nothing to the debate, and was simply puerile. It was spam, and stupid spam.

If Evan wants to insult me, when he's losing the argument, that's his business. But again, it's doesn't advance the debate one little bit, and it's especially immature coming from a moderator.

As for moderators deciding what's on-topic and what's off-topic, my experience of internet forums is that excessive policing of what constitutes "on-topicness" (if there is such a word) is highly personal and open to interpretation, and the process of interference quickly becomes tedious and irritating. I'm all for free-ranging debate, allowing lines of thought to go where they will rather than some insistence on strictly defined pigeon-holes.

Hi Jan, I refer you to my last post.

[Guest David Guyatt]

There seems to be a suggestion here that Mods are not doing their job, let me quickly explain my stance. Unless rules conserning members behaviour are being broken I don't see the need for moderation, you're all grown-ups after all, and should be able to withstand a little "rough and tumble" in the debate.

There is no suggestion that the Mods are not doing their jobs. The suggestion is that the rules are not now up to the task. Specifically what is being addressed is that baiting and confrontation should now be expressly forbidden.

Posts that are intended to inflame passions should be inhibited. This is common practice on other forums.

This thread is a classical example of one that started off gently and pleasantly enough -- debating issues -- but soon degenerating to become purposely confrontational and argumentative. This is something that appears to happen frequently without care, concern or censure... apparently.

The bad feelings this generates is quite widespread, deep and enduring. Please mark my words on this.

What is being asked for is a reassessment of moderating rules to inhibit baiting tactics and purposeful confrontation.

However, if what is wanted is outrageous lock & load rock and roll, then that's what will happen.

I would be deighted if such new rules were enacted and enforced. However, my expectation is that they wont. Which is why I again reiterate my offer to finance and administrate another independent forum to discuss these issues where more stringent rules about confrontation and behaviour will be enforced. It may be that there won't be any uptake of this offer, which will be fine by me, my limited pocket and time commitments elsewhere. But at least this option will be available for members who do not wish to visit here every day to witness yet another unmoderated outbreak of deflective trivia or flame war.

David

Hi David, you have a point, but, both sides make the same claims, ie, baiting and name calling, and both, to be fair have a point. If members really want me to crack down on this then fair enough I shall do, but without fear or favour. If you have a problem with a particular Moderator then your course is clear, report it to the Admin.

Thank you Steve. I will always abide by obvious and sensible moderating decisions as I have done in the past. All I ask is that decisions be made without fear or favour -- just using common sense and decency to inform judgements made.

I'm also with Jan's concerns about the blanket use of "off-topic" to deal with infringements. If a member cannot guide themselves on proper etiquette then Mods must inform them post haste, I think.

I would add in closing that it is the less obvious and more insidious techniques of baiting plus ploys using unpleasant confrontational tones that are aimed at arousing passions etc., that require, in my view, special oversight.

I hope all Mods active here will act as you now intend.

Thanks again.

David

[Michael Hogan]

While Colby was away from the Forum for a week, there was a notable absence of "bickering" as he and Evan call it and there certainly was no abusive language that I saw.

Upon his return, the bickering resumed. Of course, as always, Colby insists it's the fault of others.

In most cases it is. When no one disagrees “bickering” is unlikely to break out. I frequently challenge people when I believe they are false or unsupported but I normally do so in a polite manner. The problem is some members here don’t take well to having their pet notions challenged and lash out at those who do so. I won’t claim that I never throw the 1st stone but normally it’s the other guy. Often, as now, I refrain from responding in kind to unprovoked insults.

Colby's responses (#14 & #26) in this thread to Jan Klimkowski are certainly in conflict with his above explanation.

[Len Colby]

While Colby was away from the Forum for a week, there was a notable absence of "bickering" as he and Evan call it and there certainly was no abusive language that I saw.

Upon his return, the bickering resumed. Of course, as always, Colby insists it's the fault of others.

In most cases it is. When no one disagrees “bickering” is unlikely to break out. I frequently challenge people when I believe they are false or unsupported but I normally do so in a polite manner. The problem is some members here don’t take well to having their pet notions challenged and lash out at those who do so. I won’t claim that I never throw the 1st stone but normally it’s the other guy. Often, as now, I refrain from responding in kind to unprovoked insults.

Colby's responses (#14 & #26) in this thread to Jan Klimkowski are certainly in conflict with his above explanation.

Egads! After Jan made the completely erroneous claim that

Kurt Kleiner, author of that Salon nonsense, appears to specialize in creative writing - if this is his CV:

I replied:

Look again; you seem to specialize in creative reading! His CV is that of a well qualified journalist specialized in science reporting.

How will I ever live down the shame?

Mike Hogan of course would never stoop to 1st use of such abusive language!

[Len Colby]

I stand corrected it seems, I understood “go operational” as to be used in missions other than training. Perhaps Evan or Matthew can shed light on this.

While it could have other meanings depending on who is talking, my understanding is that a particular platform is "operational" once they have reached enough aircraft to stand up an entire squadron and if necessary be deployed. For example, the F-22 Was considered "operational" a couple of years ago (I can't remember exactly when) when the squadron at Langley got enough jets but the F-22 has yet to see any combat.

I stand corrected it seems, I understood “go operational” as to be used in missions other than training. Perhaps Evan or Matthew can shed light on this.

It can be a little grey at times, but generally when an aircraft system goes operational, it means that it is no longer considered to be interim or introductory; it is the same as any other weapon system. For instance, we obtained the operational release for the Seahawk at the end of the 1980s but it wasn't used "in anger" until the early 1990s.

Many weapon systems are operational yet never are "used in anger".

I do stand corrected then. Actually the story of the secrecy around the F117A does seem quite remarkable even if the secrecy wasn't as complete as Cook and Jan made it out to be.

[Guest David Guyatt]

I'm also with Jan's concerns about the blanket use of "off-topic" to deal with infringements. If a member cannot guide themselves on proper etiquette then Mods must inform them post haste, I think.

David, I interpreted Evan's comments are being far more draconian than that.

In post #50, he wrote:

BTW, I do have to apologise for letting the thread go off topic - that was my bad. Jack, sorry for letting that happen.

We can discuss the stealth matter further in a new thread, if people like.

I interpret this as a moderator stating that the whole subject of Stealth was off-topic in this thread. When it clearly wasn't. You and I made the speculative suggestion that chemtrails may be linked to Aurora which is still top secret. In response to the counter-claim that it was nearly impossible to keep a functioning airplane "black", I brought up Stealth. Therefore Stealth was a logical part of this argument.

I would be furious if a moderator unilaterally ruled Stealth as being off-topic in these circumstances.

I do not interpret Evan's post #50 as being an apology for his puerile post #25. If it was intended as such, then he should have been clearer.

My apologies Jan. Stealth obviously must form part and parcel of the chemtrails debate in view of Cook's video evidence.

[Guest David Guyatt]

As clear an example of confrontational and outright offensive language that I can find on this thread is made in Len Colby's post No26 mentioned above by Michael Hogan (I have bolded what I regard as the most offensive part):

"And so, it's 100% inevitable and predictable that crude ad hominem attacks are launched on those bringing this new evidence to a broad audience. The truth is dangerous stuff."

Of course your main critique of the critical review of the Cook book is a “crude ad hominem attack’ and a false one at that (see below) very little of Kleiner’s review could be labeled “ad hominem” are you sure you know what the phrase means?

This was completely unnecessary and uncalled for imo. Jan Klimkowski's restraint when responding was laudable (and not something I find easy to emulate, I have to admit).

[Len Colby]

As clear an example of confrontational and outright offensive language that I can find on this thread is made in Len Colby's post No26 mentioned above by Michael Hogan (I have bolded what I regard as the most offensive part):

"And so, it's 100% inevitable and predictable that crude ad hominem attacks are launched on those bringing this new evidence to a broad audience. The truth is dangerous stuff."

Of course your main critique of the critical review of the Cook book is a “crude ad hominem attack’ and a false one at that (see below) very little of Kleiner’s review could be labeled “ad hominem” are you sure you know what the phrase means?

This was completely unnecessary and uncalled for imo. Jan Klimkowski's restraint when responding was laudable (and not something I find easy to emulate, I have to admit).

Heavens to Betsy! I asked him if he knew the meaning of a phrase he seemed to use incorrectly, perhaps I should be tarred and feather or perhaps being drawn and quartered would be more appropriate. David considering all the vile attacks you’ve directed against me your objection to such a mild offense (if my comment even qualify as such) is absurd.

Perhaps one could complain that I (using his own words back at him) characterized his criticism of Kleiner as a “CRUDE ad hominem” but even so by the standards of this forum that could be considered insulting. The man himself is not exactly immune to being less than diplomatic he characterized a poll I started as “stupid, reductive and pointless”.

[Guest David Guyatt]

Growing numbers of members here are fed up with provocative and inflammatory tactics. The sensible approach would be to moderate language and to stop seeking confrontations as often as now happens. I personally know people who won't visit or post on this forum simply because it has become a brawling ground and is increasingly difficult to debate important topics intelligently and with respect for others positions -- even though one may heartily disagree with them.

I thought the purpose of moderation was to protect against behaviour that was divisive and offensive.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Gents, the last three posts are clearly off topic, in danger of derailing the thread, and teetering on the abusive. Can we return to the subject of the thread please (What ever that was)

[Jack White]

I was working in my yard about 11 a.m. today and noticed several

chemtrail Xs in the distance.

I looked directly overhead and two chemplanes were making a big X

directly over my house. I dropped what I was doing and went inside

for my camera. Five minutes passed from when I first saw the big X.

It had already begun to spread and the prevailing westerly winds had

pushed it about 20 miles to the east. I wanted to get my house in the

photo with it, but by then the angle was not right.

These were NOT persistent contrails.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

As always:

- They match normal contrails.

- You have nothing to prove that they are anything but a normal contrail.

If you ever get an airborne sample of one which analysis says does contain unusual chemicals, I'll pay attention. Until that time, it is simply baseless speculation.

Also, no need to start a new thread for each time you take a photo. I'll merge this into the main "chemtrail" thread in due course.

[Matthew Lewis]

Interesting that you say definitively "These were NOT persistent contrails."

How would you know? Were any tests done on samples taken from it? Do they somehow look any different than a persistent contrail would be expected to look like? Gee, it seems the answer to both those questions are no. It seems that once again you have no proof that what you are seeing are some kind of mythical "chemtrail".

Edited July 5, 2008 by Matthew Lewis

[Jack White]

I was working in my yard about 11 a.m. today and noticed several

chemtrail Xs in the distance.

I looked directly overhead and two chemplanes were making a big X

directly over my house. I dropped what I was doing and went inside

for my camera. Five minutes passed from when I first saw the big X.

It had already begun to spread and the prevailing westerly winds had

pushed it about 20 miles to the east. I wanted to get my house in the

photo with it, but by then the angle was not right.

These were NOT persistent contrails.

Jack

Later in the day, a little after 7 p.m., the 2 chemplanes returned to

the exact same location, and repeated the bigX just as they had done

at noon. During the day, I counted 7 big Xs like the two I photographed,

in various portions of the sky. And near sunset, in this same location

there was a cross that I did not photograph...the EW stroke was probably

ten miles long from end to end, but the NS crossbar was very short, just a

few hundred yards and near the west end.

Jack